What do you do to improve your descriptive writing?

[Penpilot]

Not saying they are perfect,but they are concise, and tell you all you really need to know about these two characters' looks. If looks have meaning... a character identifies with mom's side of the family more than dad's because of how they look, or GRRM, dark haired children of the king, then by all means detail is good.

To me, it's about knowing when to be concise and when to untie the bow and let things open up. That's where the skill lies. I hate using this term, but this is all about Show and Telling, knowing when to show, and knowing when to tell, and how much.

Concise taken to the extreme can be cold and with zero immersion. I mean LOTR could be condensed into something like this.

Two hobbits set out to destroy an evil ring by throwing it into the fires of MT. Doom. They met many interesting people and did many interesting things. Then, they destroyed the ring. The End.

Doesn't exactly capture the imagination does it?

I'll not bore you with the other end of the extreme. Not enough words on the internet for that.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

It all really comes down to The Clash: Should I tell or I should I show now...

To me, it's about knowing when to be concise and when to untie the bow and let things open up. That's where the skill lies. I hate using this term, but this is all about Show and Telling, knowing when to show, and knowing when to tell, and how much.

Concise taken to the extreme can be cold and with zero immersion. I mean LOTR could be condensed into something like this.

Two hobbits set out to destroy an evil ring by throwing it into the fires of MT. Doom. They met many interesting people and did many interesting things. Then, they destroyed the ring. The End.

Doesn't exactly capture the imagination does it?

I'll not bore you with the other end of the extreme. Not enough words on the internet for that.

 

[Geo]

It all really comes down to The Clash: Should I tell or I should I show now...

But descriptive writing is part of both telling and showing... it's not exclusive of one or the other.

The big difference is that when we are telling we are describing what the characters are doing in a dynamic way and when we're showing we are describing the settings and generally in a more static form. Hence, both sides of telling a story would benefit of improved describing abilities.

Probably the only place were describing doesn't occur is in un-tagged dialogue (any tags beyond she said/he said are in fact describing).

 

[Graham M]

There are some excellent suggestions here. For myself, the simplest thing I can do to improve my description is to consult the thesaurus and dictionary I always have to hand. From there, I can make the best word choice and polish later as necessary.

I agree that descriptions should hold depth, and do so concisely. It's something I struggle with, but I think some of the suggestions here may help in future.

 

[Wolf M]

What I try to do most is use senses other than sight, and when I'm in a particular character's POV, I try not to use any words he wouldn't be familiar with.

 

[Logos&Eidos]

But descriptive writing is part of both telling and showing... it's not exclusive of one or the other.

The big difference is that when we are telling we are describing what the characters are doing in a dynamic way and when we're showing we are describing the settings and generally in a more static form. Hence, both sides of telling a story would benefit of improved describing abilities.

Probably the only place were describing doesn't occur is in un-tagged dialogue (any tags beyond she said/he said are in fact describing).

The question that I've been hunting for answer to is, how to show and tell at the same time. And do so with curt and concise language rather than waxing poetic layering on descriptive elements.

 

[Penpilot]

The question that I've been hunting for answer to is, how to show and tell at the same time. And do so with curt and concise language rather than waxing poetic layering on descriptive elements.

The thing about Showing and Telling is that it's a broad concept that doesn't just involve description. It involves story themes, conflicts, and a bunch of other things that aren't coming to me right now.

For example. You want to show someone is angry, describe them punching a wall.

You want to show one person hates another, have them pee into their coffee.

You want to show greed is good, write a story that shows this through the interaction of the characters and the conflicts.

The first example is the simplest expression of showing, and the latter can be infinitely more complex, especially when you deal with complex themes and situations.

I read a book called Disgrace. It won the Nobel prize for literature, and by reading it, it showed me the complex social situation in a post-apartheid South Africa, and how they got there by using allegory. After reading the story, I got a clearer view and understanding of both sides and the situation they faced, past and present.

If you look at he works of Cormac MacCarthy, he does similar things.

So in every story you are showing and telling at the same time.

 

[Geo]

The question that I've been hunting for answer to is, how to show and tell at the same time. And do so with curt and concise language rather than waxing poetic layering on descriptive elements.

I think that's exactly what getting better at this craft means. To learn when to tell, when to show, when to do both, when to do it small, and when to use big words. And implies a lot of hard work (at least it is for me) and a bit of luck.

In my opinion, one very important aspect of effective showing and/or telling, and of course the involved descriptions, is to trust your reader. Trusting that whoever is reading your words is capable of filling the gaps, and connecting the dots, that they have an imagination of their own.

Personally, I struggle with that. So when I self edited, I pay attention to how much information it’s really necessary and how much I just gave away because I started doubting the reader would catch my drift (in a matter of speaking).

Here some examples (bare in mind that this are not best-though examples, just what came to me to try and explain what I mean):

1. You can describe when you tell (your focus is on physical features both of setting and character)

He advanced slowly, breathing heavy. A big guy, without much hiking experience, he was lucky the ground was covered with pine needles and browning leaves that muffled his noisy march.
(Not very elegant and full of unnecessary information).

2. Then you can turn it into a showing (description but focused on actions)

Clumsy, he hiked through the forest, the sound of his march muffled by fallen pine needles and leaves.
(A bit better, I think, but the felling that he’s running away from something is gone, I don't like that)

3. Then you can show with more elegance and less words (there is still description but much of it it’s implied, to be interpreted by the reader)

He glimpsed back, and relieved the autumn forest cloaked his heavy steps, he kept moving.
(it’s shorter but everything is there. The reference to heavy steps brings to mind a big guy and/or not very agile. Autumn forest tells us about fallen leaves. The glimpsing back, tell us he is running from something… it’s not perfect, but I like it better).

As Penpilot says, reading a lot helps, because you learn by example (and then do by intuition).

Describing is part of what allows us to create characters and worlds, but it must be a slave to those objectives. If your descriptions are not advancing the plot or building your characters, probably they need some re-thinking (at least that’s why I have found about my own writing).

 

[Svrtnsse]

Lately I've found that a lot of my descriptions are less about showing how something appears and more about triggering associations within the reader's mind. Instead of showing how something looks I try to give just enough pointers for the reader to create their own image of that which I'm describing.

My thinking is that any image the reader creates themselves is much stronger and much more alive than anything I can describe to them.

I've not taken this to the full extreme yet, and I probably won't, but it's definitely something I'm using and enjoying at the moment. Kind of like this:

The city stands silent and empty while the heavens wrap themselves around the world like a big grey nothing. This rain will fall forever – all through the afternoon and well into the evening. It’s a day best spent inside. Hot chocolate by the fireplace. Raindrops on the window pane.

There really isn't anything in the above paragraph to show what the characters or the reader see - except there's a city (with no one out and about), and it's raining. The rest are just triggers for emotions to associate with the scene.

Does this work for everyone? I doubt it.
It works for me though, and it's a style I enjoy both writing and reading.

 

[Logos&Eidos]

I think that's exactly what getting better at this craft means. To learn when to tell, when to show, when to do both, when to do it small, and when to use big words. And implies a lot of hard work (at least it is for me) and a bit of luck.

In my opinion, one very important aspect of effective showing and/or telling, and of course the involved descriptions, is to trust your reader. Trusting that whoever is reading your words is capable of filling the gaps, and connecting the dots, that they have an imagination of their own.

Personally, I struggle with that. So when I self edited, I pay attention to how much information it’s really necessary and how much I just gave away because I started doubting the reader would catch my drift (in a matter of speaking).

Here some examples (bare in mind that this are not best-though examples, just what came to me to try and explain what I mean):

1. You can describe when you tell (your focus is on physical features both of setting and character)

He advanced slowly, breathing heavy. A big guy, without much hiking experience, he was lucky the ground was covered with pine needles and browning leaves that muffled his noisy march.
(Not very elegant and full of unnecessary information).

2. Then you can turn it into a showing (description but focused on actions)

Clumsy, he hiked through the forest, the sound of his march muffled by fallen pine needles and leaves.
(A bit better, I think, but the felling that he’s running away from something is gone, I don't like that)

3. Then you can show with more elegance and less words (there is still description but much of it it’s implied, to be interpreted by the reader)

He glimpsed back, and relieved the autumn forest cloaked his heavy steps, he kept moving.
(it’s shorter but everything is there. The reference to heavy steps brings to mind a big guy and/or not very agile. Autumn forest tells us about fallen leaves. The glimpsing back, tell us he is running from something… it’s not perfect, but I like it better).

As Penpilot says, reading a lot helps, because you learn by example (and then do by intuition).

Describing is part of what allows us to create characters and worlds, but it must be a slave to those objectives. If your descriptions are not advancing the plot or building your characters, probably they need some re-thinking (at least that’s why I have found about my own writing).

Number 1 was better assuming that the information pertaining to the hiker and not been established elsewhere.


See I wish to leave as few gaps for the reader as possible. I am telling a story to the audience, we are not cooperating in a creative endeavored and there will be no audience participation.

I know what everything is and looks like, my job is to communicate that to the audience. To do with words what I have not been able to with my hands, paint a clear picture of what things are unless I am choosing to be vague.

 

[Penpilot]

See I wish to leave as few gaps for the reader as possible. I am telling a story to the audience, we are not cooperating in a creative endeavored and there will be no audience participation.

I know what everything is and looks like, my job is to communicate that to the audience.

But you see, I think story telling IS a collaboration. The author brings the spark. The reader brings the tinder. If there's not audience participation, as in emotional engagement, then there's no flame.

With out audience engagement, the story becomes more of a textbook, a bunch of facts that the reader will have little to no interest in.

What Geo is trying to show is how one can communicate just as much in fewer words and to engage the reader at the same time.

 

[Geo]

I am telling a story to the audience, we are not cooperating in a creative endeavored and there will be no audience participation.

That in itself is a problem... why? because reading requires the creative participation of the reader. And, I'm not trying to discourage you at all, I'm just advancing you a fact. Reading is a process that requires the interpretation of abstract symbols to create images. Unfortunately, as much as we like to believe otherwise, such interpretations are highly subjective. You could describe something in great detail, but unless it's something really simple, you'll find out that not two readers have imagined exactly the same thing.

Language, written language and otherwise, evolves not only in time, but geographically, with education, age. Hence, the background of your readers will have a huge impact in the way they interpret your words. Giving them too many words makes them feel trap, there is not way to go, if they can't relate (because your words do not create plausible images, and I mean plausible for them), they will feel cheated, bored. Giving them too little and they would not be able to create satisfactory images. The idea, I think, is to give them enough so they can create their own version of what you saw.

For me, that is where the beauty of writing resides. I write ideas, the reader creates the images... I could not say it better than Penpilot

But you see, I think story telling IS a collaboration. The author brings the spark. The reader brings the tinder. If there's not audience participation, as in emotional engagement, then there's no flame.

However, if spelling every bee and describing every worm is what you need, go for it. Start writing, describing, advance your story... chances are after the first draft is done and dusted, you may come back, re-read your own words and discover the images they bring have change (or not), and then you can edit at own desire. Just write

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Any art form requires participation by the audience and the artist will never be in control. Just look at the movie Patton, anti-war film or ra-ra go troops! It's been seen both ways, despite the fact it is probably mostly intended as a biography. And this is a movie where you can actually show the people what you want them to see.

The problem? In the end art is about feeling, not pictures. The most we can do is use our imagery to manipulate that emotion.

 

[Logos&Eidos]

But you see, I think story telling IS a collaboration. The author brings the spark. The reader brings the tinder. If there's not audience participation, as in emotional engagement, then there's no flame.

With out audience engagement, the story becomes more of a textbook, a bunch of facts that the reader will have little to no interest in.

What Geo is trying to show is how one can communicate just as much in fewer words and to engage the reader at the same time.

If the reader needs to imagine things on their own, then I need to go back and do a better job at conveying the story and the world to the audience. To create art is to put on display what the creator thinks and feels to the outside world, it is sharing a piece of your self. I don't read,watch or listen for my own imagination, I do it to experience the creator's vision. For any possible audience I wish to convey my vision to them in the most clear and concise manor possible.

Mauve or burgundy prose, that line between the extremes of purple and beige, is what I seeking, and what I think that we should all be.

That in itself is a problem... why? because reading requires the creative participation of the reader. And, I'm not trying to discourage you at all, I'm just advancing you a fact. Reading is a process that requires the interpretation of abstract symbols to create images. Unfortunately, as much as we like to believe otherwise, such interpretations are highly subjective. You could describe something in great detail, but unless it's something really simple, you'll find out that not two readers have imagined exactly the same thing.

Language, written language and otherwise, evolves not only in time, but geographically, with education, age. Hence, the background of your readers will have a huge impact in the way they interpret your words. Giving them too many words makes them feel trap, there is not way to go, if they can't relate (because your words do not create plausible images, and I mean plausible for them), they will feel cheated, bored. Giving them too little and they would not be able to create satisfactory images. The idea, I think, is to give them enough so they can create their own version of what you saw.

For me, that is where the beauty of writing resides. I write ideas, the reader creates the images... I could not say it better than Penpilot



However, if spelling every bee and describing every worm is what you need, go for it. Start writing, describing, advance your story... chances are after the first draft is done and dusted, you may come back, re-read your own words and discover the images they bring have change (or not), and then you can edit at own desire. Just write

I don't read for my own imagination, I read for the author's. To see the world that they have constructed, I am a spectator on the events that are unfolding over the course of a story, and not a percipient, not even in first-person do I feel like anything over than spectator. And to me that is the correct experience, a book is movie with words and instead of cinematography. I seek to impart visualness to my writing, to thoroughly describe everything in a clear and concise manor. The fact that writing is craft with abstract tools, in my mind makes the need clarity and concision self-evident.

What's the point of all that poetic imagery if the audience has stop and puzzle out what something is or what is taking;Unless of course I'm deliberately being obscure. Every line of description is a brush stroke taking us from a blank canvases to a complete image; that Is how I seek to right.

Any art form requires participation by the audience and the artist will never be in control. Just look at the movie Patton, anti-war film or ra-ra go troops! It's been seen both ways, despite the fact it is probably mostly intended as a biography. And this is a movie where you can actually show the people what you want them to see.

The problem? In the end art is about feeling, not pictures. The most we can do is use our imagery to manipulate that emotion.

I seek revelation not participation, both in reading and in want I want my own work to carry. The words convoyed by the author builds an image in the reader's mind,I want that image to be as exacting and distinct as possible.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

If the reader needs to imagine things on their own, then I need to go back and do a better job at conveying the story and the world to the audience.

I couldn't disagree more.

In my opinion, you want your reader to be an active participant in your story. Active participation engages the mind. It aids immersion. It can make your story world more real.

For example: If I'm describing a scene with a school bully, I could go into great detail about what the bully looks like (down to the stitching on clothes if I wanted), all the equipment on the playground, the color of brick used to build the schoolhouse, etc. Or, I could give a few specific, but meaningful details, like how the playground smelled like piss the moment that bully roughed up my friend, & allow the reader to fill in the blanks from their own experience.

We've all likely experienced bullying at some point in our lives, first-hand or second. If the reader imbues my story with their real life experiences (what the bully they remember looked like, the shape of the playground slide from their childhood), the scene will come to life for them more than my attempts at detailed description ever could.

The reader's true life experiences are what PenPilot meant by "tinder". My conveying of the scene and its events is the "spark".

Now, if the details of the bully & playground are somehow important & relevant to the story, perhaps the minute details need be told.

That's the choice I've made for my writing. It won't be the same for all. Some use a lot more description than I do to great effect. Some use less. It can be done either way, and done well. You can do anything in writing as long as it's interesting. The issue with overly detailed description rests within details that aren't truly necessary, and therefore, slow the story with little added effect, boring the reader.

I've found the reader's active participation, in adding texture of their own to my scene, my description, helps to keep things interesting.

 

[Heliotrope]

Like T.Allan once reminded me, "You can do anything as long as it's interesting"...

This discussion brings me back to a previous discussion on writer voice and style.

Hemingway expects readers to fill in the blank. He gives just enough.

By this time we were at the restaurant. I called to the cocher to stop. We got out and Georgette did not like the looks of the place. "This is no great thing of a restaurant."

"No," I said. "Maybe you would rather go to Foyot's. Why don't you keep the cab and go on."

I had picked her up because of a vague sentimental idea that it would be nice to eat with some one. It was a long time since I had dined with a poule, and I had forgotten how dull it could be. We went into the restaurant, passed Madame Lavigne at the desk and went into a little room. Georgette cheered up a little under the food.

"It isn't bad here," she said. "It isn't chic, but the food is all right."

"Better than you eat in Liege."

"Brussels, you mean."

We had another bottle of wine and Georgette made a joke. She smiled and showed all her bad teeth, and we touched glasses.

"You're not a bad type," she said. "It's a shame you're sick. We get on well. What's the matter with you anyway?"

"I got hurt in the war," I said.

"Oh, that dirty war."

We would probably have gone on and discussed the war and agreed it was in reality a calamity for civilization, and perhaps would have been better avoided. I was bored enough.

I love Hemmingway because he leaves it up to me. I don't need him to describe the restaraunt. Just her saying "this is no great thing of a restaraunt" is enough to put an entire image in my head, and because whether the wallpaper was yellow or blue or chartreuse is not important to the plot, Hemmingway opts to leave that up to me.

On the flip side, George RR Martin has invented an entire world and in order to make his world seem more real has to go into great depths describing the pub, the people in the pub, the food at the table, the type of wine they were drinking and where the grapes were harvested. He may also get into the cut and style of the woman's dress, whether it was silk or satin, and how her hair was arranged.

Both styles work to serve their purpose.

 

[Geo]

I seek to impart visualness to my writing, to thoroughly describe everything in a clear and concise manor...

...I seek revelation not participation, both in reading and in want I want my own work to carry...

So do it!

You have already a great advantage: You have found your purpose as a writer, so pursue it with zealously.

Evidently I had not useful advice for you, for I’m never just a spectator. I’m an active reader/watcher/listener. I engage. I enjoy finding the gaps where my experiences become a link with what I read. I like the puzzles niche in the writing cues of unfilled sentences, so I have no useful words for a writer that is looking to fill every gap, that is trying to solve every puzzle for me.

I can only encourage you to find the way to convey your unique reality, the spectators reality, and to seduce us with this unique voice into forgetting emotions and interactions. Make us spectators of your work.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

@Heliotrope

An excellent Hemingway example.

Yes, GRRM does sometimes get exceedingly detailed, describing every plate of food or the color and texture of each fabric in a setting. At other times, he can be quite concise, even a minimalist. The first few pages of Game of Thrones (the 1st book), for example, have very little in the way of detailed description. Yet, I find the opening equally as engaging as the descriptive castle feasts or the settings of Quarth.

I think we should each be able to recognize that a writer can successfully employ one method, the other, or both in the same story. For me, I try to use extreme levels of detail to draw the reader's attention to something in a subtle way, or to assist in conveying a mood. Otherwise, I prefer sparse description.

 

[Heliotrope]

I love, for myself, when a writer can describe something in a new way. Not a visual way, but a way I've never heard before.

Her love was an oatmeal kind of love. Cold and grey and bland and yet nourishing in its simplicity.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I love, for myself, when a writer can describe something in a new way. Not a visual way, but a way I've never heard before. Her love was an oatmeal kind of love. Cold and grey and bland and yet nourishing in its simplicity.

Metaphor & simile can do so much in a short amount of space.

Powerful.